Post subject: Re: American Ballet Theatre: Spring 2012 Season at the Met

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:41 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:01 pmPosts: 443Location: New Jersey

American Ballet TheaterMetropolitan Opera HouseLincoln CenterNew York, New York

June 12; June 22, 2012“Firebird”

-- by Jerry Hochman

I expect a lot from Alexei Ratmansky. While I have not always gushed over his ballets, I have found all that I’ve seen to be intelligently crafted works of art that are also interesting to watch unfold, and that frequently tend to warm the heart and tickle the funny bone at the same time.. As I’ve previously described, his ballets convey a sense of humanity, whether the ballets is serious (“Russian Seasons,” “On the Dnieper”), or comic (“The Little Humpbacked Horse”), or both (“The Nutcracker”). But on my initial viewing of Mr. Ratmansky’s new version of “Firebird,” I was disappointed. I saw it as a hodgepodge of frenetic movement and misplaced comedy that made the piece appear almost incoherent. My second viewing did not change my opinion – but I see it now as an effort that might have worked, even with what I consider to have been a misguided concept, had it been more restrained.

The myth of a magical, god-like bird with bright gold, purple, scarlet or peacock-like plumage that is aligned with a sun god or that possesses heat, light, or fire of its own, is common to many cultures. In Greece, the bird was called a Phoenix. Related ‘birds’ can be found from India and Egypt to Persia, China and Japan, from Eastern Europe to Central Europe.

This god-like bird is common to Slavic cultures as well. In Russian folklore, the Firebird is known as Zhar-Ptitska, and the Firebird myth has spawned several related fairy tales, the most famous of which are “Ivan Tsarevich and the Grey Wolf” and “The Little Humpbacked Horse.” In ridiculously broad strokes, the Firebird brings hope to the oppressed masses and humiliation to hapless old tsars, feeds on precious golden apples (which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view), and every once in awhile sheds a feather – which has magical powers that lead the feather’s finder on a quest for happiness, immortality, the tsar’s daughter, or some combination of all of them, and that can be used to summon the Firebird when help is needed.

Serge Diaghilev and Michel Fokine mined Russian fairy-tale sources, merging the Firebird myth with the separate myth of an evil sorcerer-tsar Kaschei, to create the ballet “The Firebird” for the Ballets Russes. It premiered on June 25, 1910 in Paris, with Tamara Karsavina as the Firebird, and a score by a young composer named Igor Stravinsky. Among other incarnations of the ballet, George Balanchine created a version for the New York City Ballet, which featured sets by Marc Chagall, which is presently in NYCB’s repertoire.

Unlike “The Little Humpbacked Horse,” which Mr. Ratmansky recreated for the Mariinsky and which I saw, and favorably reviewed, last summer, “Firebird” does not include in its story a foolish old tsar to ridicule, or fantastical shenanigans to laugh at. At least as presented by Diaghilev, Fokine, and Stravinsky, “Firebird” is a serious fairy tale. Prince Ivan captures a Firebird, who begs for her freedom, and in return for releasing her, the Firebird provides Ivan with a feather that he can use to summon her when needed. Ivan and the Firebird subsequently rescue a Princess (with whom Ivan happens to fall in love) and her entourage from evil Kaschei. A simple story of good triumphing over evil.

For a story that’s related to, but very different from “The Little Humpbacked Horse,” Mr. Ratmansky’s “Firebird” looks and ‘feels’ much like his LHH. Mr. Ratmansky infuses his “Firebird” with comedy. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that – perhaps he learned the story differently, or just wanted to create an anti-Balanchine version that doesn’t take itself so seriously. But the comic elements he has introduced are not 'warm-hearted’ comic; just silly. Instead of a magical mythological tale, Mr. Ratmansky has presented a piece that is as much an absurdist satire as a fairy tale; more worthy of the brothers Marx than the brothers Grimm.

I must confess that, aside from the Chagall sets, I never particularly liked Balanchine’s “Firebird.” Even when spectacularly performed (by Maria Kowroski the last time I saw it), it seemed too reverential; too stiff. Mr. Ratmansky’s version is the opposite. To this viewer, it is too irreverent, too much of a choreographic conglomeration of ballet and running and jumping, and too lightweight. It’s as if Mr. Ratmansky took the story and decided that it’s only a fairy tale, and everyone should just lighten up and chill. It’s appropriate, perhaps, that this version had its world premiere earlier this year in Costa Mesa, California.

But if converting the ballet from a fairy tale with dark overtones to a comic reinterpretation of a fairy tale were all there was to criticize about this new version, then it would be an interpretive difference that perhaps could be gotten used to. But the artistic choices made were not helpful, and changed the thrust of the piece from a fairy tale that schoolchildren can love into a piece that, perhaps, only schoolchildren can love.

Mr. Ratmansky’s “Firebird” opens with Ivan, dressed in a white pierrot-like outfit, in some sort of room, or cell, behind a wall, either jumping to get out or falling to the floor, finally exiting through a cut-out door into the fantasy world of the Firebird. [Why Ivan is so frustrated at his inability to escape, when there’s an open door there all the time, is not explained.] The scene looks like an homage to "Petruchka" – a collaboration by the same artistic team that created “Firebird” a year earlier.

The fantasy realm into which Ivan crosses is marked by strange-shaped ‘trees’ with tips ablaze and smoke intermittently emerging from the treetops. Shortly after Ivan enters the space, he’s nearly run over by a gaggle of firebirds, which, in this version, are as rare and exotic as pigeons. There are female firebirds, and male firebirds, dressed in red from head to toe, and running to and fro across the stage like…grounded birds. Then another firebird joins the flock – she appears to be the queen firebird because she moves with more authority and dynamism (looking like a little red roadrunner), and has more of a personality than the other birds. While one would think that it would have been less difficult for Ivan to have captured one of the other firebirds [it shouldn’t have made a difference; isn’t every firebird supposed to be magical?], he focuses on this more independent bird. They struggle; she writhes; she begs him to let her go. The struggle between the Firebird and Ivan, to this viewer, is the most interesting part of the piece; a very well-choreographed little battle.

The Firebird finally sheds a feather; Ivan picks it up, and the Firebird escapes (and we see her as a red beam of light flying away at warp speed – similar to Carabosse’s skyrocket exit from the festivities to celebrate the birth of Aurora in ABT’s current version of “The Sleeping Beauty”). And then the ballet falls apart.

Immediately after the Firebird zooms away, Ivan encounters a bevy of maidens, dressed in ocean-blue from head to toe (including hair). The maidens look and act a little strange – as if they’d been fed hallucinogenic mushrooms. Ivan is attracted to one of the maidens, but soon after Ivan and the Maiden begin to get to know each other, the shadow of Kaschei, looms over the scraggly-looking forest of fake trees. The visualization of Kaschei approaching is both literal and satirical –a projected image of an oversized obviously evil man, in shadow, magnified in the distance as he ominously approaches, diminishing in size as he moves closer to the light source, and to the maidens. It’s a fabulous set of images (a little like Dorothy’s first view of the shadow of the Wizard in “The Wizard of Oz”), and exemplifies what might have been had similarly dramatic, albeit humorous, artistic choices been made in the rest of the piece.

The character Kaschei (as opposed to his projected image) is a comic-book villain. If he had a mustache, it would be pencil thin spreading halfway across his cheeks, and he’d be twirling one of the edges with his fingers. Cartoonish though he is, in this viewer’s opinion he’s more central to the piece than Ivan, who doesn’t seem to have a reason for being other than to move the plot along.

Kaschei manipulates the maidens, who continue to look more stoned than possessed. But eventually Ivan summons the Firebird, and the two vanquish Kaschei when, after an epic struggle, the Firebird shows Ivan that all he needs to do is crack this oversized egg that was embedded all the time in one of the pseudo trees. Ivan cracks the egg, in which Kaschei’s soul was protected. Having lost his soul and his power, Kaschei dies, and the maidens thereupon shed their blue threads and hair and morph into pure white...maidens (including white hair), and pure white male escorts emerge from confinement within the trees/columns of the set). [We have no clue where these men (most of whom look like they’d been male firebirds in a prior life, or prior scene) come from, why they were confined, or why they’re all dressed like Ivan. Perhaps Ivan is an ‘everyman’, and the multiple Ivans are intended to be ‘everymen.’]

Unlike LHH, the artistic choices that Mr. Ratmansky made here do not enrich the humor; they demean the effort and convert the myth from a simple fairy tale of good triumphing over evil into something to laugh at. And although the final scene, when the maidens are released from their hallucinogenic captivity, looking like a sea of bleached hyperactive swans, isn’t bad, it’s too little, too late. It’s not consistent with the myth, in this viewer’s opinion, to have the possessed maidens laughed at. It’s not funny to have the lead maiden assaulted by Kaschei and the event handled just like another comic episode. And, when the maidens are set free, which should be the piece’s cathartic release, it defeats the point to see these ‘free’ maidens struggle to get rid of their blue outfits and hair looking like reptiles struggling to shed their skin. And the choreography was too frantic -- lots of pointless, repetitive jumping, with vaudeville-like dances for the maidens (the 'vaudeville' analogy I owe to a friend) and the Firebird flying around the stage in a frenzy (ok, like a bird). Overall, it just looked silly.

The casting, at least based on the two performances of “Firebird” that I saw, was unusually well-balanced for ABT. At Tuesday’s performance, Misty Copeland flew around the stage like Sonic the Firebird (Sonic, roadrunner…you get the idea), but it was all force and little finesse. Ms. Copeland has a powerful stage presence, which she used to advantage as the Firebird. But to this viewer, raw power was all there was, and Ms. Copeland has developed more qualities as a dancer than only power (as I’ve written previously, I think she’d make a sensational ‘Carmen’ if ABT decides to revive it). Her Ivan, Herman Cornejo, was an equally powerful stage presence, as he always is, though most of the time he seemed powerfully perplexed. At Friday’s performance, the partnering of Isabella Boylston and Alexandre Hammoudi was less strong, but had more finesse than did Ms. Copeland and Mr. Cornejo. Ms. Boylston infused the role with characterization that I didn’t previously see (though I concede that by second viewing I was open to seeing nuances that I couldn’t appreciate on first viewing), including wonderful scared-bird eyes. Mr. Hammoudi was a less powerful Ivan than Mr. Cornejo, but balanced Ms. Boylston’s finesse with his own more refined and serene stage persona (his Paris, in “Romeo and Juliet” is always a nice guy rather than a creep). The lead ‘Maiden’ was Maria Riccetto on Tuesday and Kristi Boone on Friday. Both handled the foolishness well, but compared to Ms. Boone, Ms. Riccetto was more over-the-top loony (until released from Kaschei’s spell, when she became more over-the-top giggly/happy).

But the tongue-in-cheek sinister Kaschei, in this viewer’s opinion, is the only character in the piece with real character, cardboard as it may be. Roman Zhurbin’s portrayal was satisfactory, but not nearly as hilariously villainous as Cory Stearns’s Kaschei was on Friday. Mr. Stearns was having a blast, and his attitude was infectious.

On Friday, “Firebird” was preceded by Frederick Ashton’s “The Dream.” While Julie Kent and Daniil Simkin were fine as Titania and Puck, Marcelo Gomes's Oberon had the right mix of majesty and insouciance – a quality that Mr. Gomes seems to wear like a second skin in most everything he does.

Tuesday’s “Firebird” was last on a program that was a gala in honor of Kevin McKenzie’s twentieth anniversary as Artistic Director of ABT. The balance of that program, and comments on Mr. McKenzie’s tenure at ABT, will be reserved for a later discussion.

Last edited by balletomaniac on Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post subject: Re: American Ballet Theatre: Spring 2012 Season at the Met

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:04 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:01 pmPosts: 443Location: New Jersey

American Ballet TheaterMetropolitan Opera HouseLincoln CenterNew York, New York

June 27M, 27E, and 30.“Swan Lake”

-- by Jerry Hochman

When all is said and done, the success of any performance of “Swan Lake,” or any other ballet for that matter, boils down to the quality of the performances. Certainly the choreography provides the essential framework, and this version, choreographed by American Ballet Theater’s Artistic Director Kevin McKenzie (‘after’ Petipa and Ivanov), is what this viewer considers to be Mr. McKenzie’s best work. But the differences from one performance to the next are in the quality of the execution and in the characterization that the dancer/actors provide. Unless one has never seen it before, one doesn’t just go to see “Swan Lake”; one goes to see Makarova’s “Odettle/Odile”, or Baryshnikov’s “Prince Siegfried.” So rather than focusing on the production, this review will focus on the three of last-week’s performances that I was able to see: Isabella Boylston’s Odette/Odile and Daniil Simkin’s Prince Siegfried at the Wednesday matinee (both were debuts); Gillian Murphy and Marcelo Gomes on Wednesday evening; and Polina Semionova and David Hallberg on Friday.

Ms. Boyston’s and Mr. Simkin’s performances were the most important. There has been a great deal of ink spilled over the past few years (including by this viewer) regarding ABT’s failure to promote growth from within. So providing this opportunity to two of its soloists, in debuts for each, is a major event. That neither was particularly successful is almost beside the point; that they were given the opportunity is. But that’s a discussion for another day. For this review, their performances deserve to be evaluated on their merits, and in the context of their relative experience.

As I’ve previously written, Ms. Boylston is not a cookie-cutter ballerina. She doesn’t possess the stereotypical beauty or delicacy that comes immediately to mind when one think of a ballerina. What made her stand out from the first time I saw her dance (a few years ago in an otherwise forgettable ballet by James Kudelka called “Desir”) is a combination of power and attack and fearless self-confidence.that commands attention, a quality that she continued to display in more classical assignments. I once described her to a friend as a ‘take-no-prisoners-ballerina’: whether intentionally or not, she dominates other dancers unfortunate enough to share the stage with her. It did not surprise me that a week after I wrote a review that focused on her last year she was promoted to soloist. And although I was surprised that she given the opportunity to dance Odette/Odile, at the Met no less, over others with more experience, it did not surprise me that she was considered for the role: she has the strength and confidence to carry it.

Her debut, however, while promising, was not entirely successful. I had anticipated, based on her stage persona, that she’d be one of those rare ‘natural’ Odiles, but that her Odette would be problematic. I found her Odette to be better than I’d anticipated, and her Odile not quite as strong as I’m certain she can do. Overall, while there were flairs of excellence (her Act II entrance, leaping onto the stage, was spectacular; her struggle to avoid being pulled away from Siegried at the end of that Act was very good), most everything else was tentative. And there was no emotional depth – her Odette was relatively stone-faced melancholy, and her Odile, though better, lacked the magnetism essential to be a seductress. She clearly was focusing on getting the steps right, and limited her characterization and nuance.

But in context, I found her performance to be very promising. I didn’t see any sense of a lack of ability – only a lack of experience. This is the way it’s supposed to be: as I said once to a ballerina friend, swans aren’t hatched fully grown. Most of the ABT Odette/Odiles we see in New York, even for debuts with the company, are by dancers who have danced the role previously with other companies (e.g., Veronika Part; Diana Vishneva); have had out-of-town ‘try-outs’, or have honed their skills over a significant period of time as a soloist. I’m sure there are exceptions (Cynthia Harvey’s debut, for example), I don’t expect perfection, or even close to it, first time out.

My reaction to Mr. Simkin’s debut is not as optimistic. Although I suspect that others saw more promise in his performance than in Ms. Boylston’s, I don’t share that opinion.

There is no denying Mr. Simkin’s prowess. He is an extraordinary technician – I doubt that anyone in the company can execute with the combination of control and explosiveness and overall excellence that he consistently demonstrates. But although Mr. Simkin is extraordinary in many ways, he’s not a prince, and I don’t know if any amount of experience will change that.

As Siegfried, and particularly in Act I, Mr. Simkin was less noble than stiff-necked, haughty, arrogant, and petulant. His conception of a noble was to stick his nose into the air (constantly, as if he doing so would make him look taller), to hold his arms stiffly across his body, and to look annoyed. His response to his mother’s demand that he find someone to marry was as if he were saying: ‘but mommy, I’m only 15 years old’. I didn’t believe it for a second – the nobility was grafted on (that his hair was styled to make him look more like Mikhail Baryshnikov didn’t help). Particularly jarring, to this viewer, was the contrast between him and his friend Benno (Joseph Gorak). While Mr. Gorak does not yet have the technical facility that Mr. Simkin has, he was more the friendly prince next door that you would like as a friend than Mr. Simkin, who you wouldn’t want to be near. At times, I felt that someone should walk up and tickle him to get him to loosen up, but I doubt that there’d have been any takers.

Mr. Simkin’s debut wasn’t without strong points. Aside from his technical ability, he provided flawless partnering (all the more remarkable since it appeared to this viewer that there was no stage chemistry between the two of them), and his attitude moderated as the ballet progressed: he appeared significantly less pseudo-aristocratic in Acts III and IV. .

As with Ms. Boylston, Mr. Simkin’s debut should be considered and evaluated in context. But, to this viewer, Mr. Simkin has more difficulties to overcome to be considered a danseur noble than Ms. Boylston has to become an Odette/Odile.

More experienced, and more successful performances followed on Wednesday evening and on Friday.

Gillian Murphy and Marcelo Gomes are ABTs best, and their performances were extraordinary. Ms. Murphy’s Odette/Odile was simply awesome. Her Odette was stronger than I recalled, her Odile was brilliant. Ms. Murphy has always had an unusual facility with turns and balances, and no dancer that I’ve seen can hold her center as she does. But what made her performance exceptional was not just her turns and balance, but her ability to develop and express character through her movement. That having been said – her fouettes were beyond belief. Not just ‘standard’ doubles and triples and arms up and down. She did swan arms as she was turning. Good ones – not just flapping. And she landed on a dime. And left the audience, or at least this member of the audience, laughing in disbelief.

Mr. Gomes is not ABTs most valuable company member (as I described him several years ago) for nothing. He demonstrated it again on Wednesday. Mr. Gomes has never been (at least from what I’ve seen over the years) the dancer with the most tricks, the highest leaps, the most perfect turns. But he brings so much more to every performance than just standard operating extraordinary technical prowess. He doesn’t need to ‘act’ noble; he just is. He doesn’t need to show off; he just does what he does. And what he does better than anyone is to make his ballerina look good, which he does instinctively and consistently. And he never phones it in.

Like every great performer, Mr. Gomes tries new things where the choreography permits. In this performance, I noticed that Mr. Gomes’s Act I ‘interpretation’ is different from what I recalled. While the prince is supposed to be somewhat melancholy, this usually takes the form of ‘something’s missing from my life.’ Mr. Gomes’s melancholy was more focused. He looked around, saw that there was a girl for every guy except him, and clearly wondered if he’d ever find someone to fill the void in his life. I’m not sure that I believe that the prince’s melancholy should be so specifically expressed, but that doesn’t matter. It was just another example of Mr. Gomes distinctive individuality.

This performance also provided another ‘Gomesism’. Mr. Gomes is unflappable. At this performance, toward the end of Act II, while he was partnering her, a button (or some other part of his costume) got caught in Ms. Murphy’s tutu. It could have been a disaster. Mr. Gomes somehow managed to get himself unstuck while continuinig to partner Ms. Murphy (it wasn’t easy – I saw that it took him more than one try), and never missed a beat. It was just another day at the office for Mr. Gomes.

But, for this viewer, the most memorable performance was by Ms. Semionova last night. Following her debut (with ABT) in the role last year, I found her performance to be remarkable. Say what you will about ABT’s ‘guest artist’ policy, her Odette/Odile this year has evolved into one of the finest overall portrayals I’ve seen. Not quite as flashy as Ms. Murphy’s, but every bit as complete a portrayal. Her Odette was sensitive, moving, and feather lite (not easy for a ballerina as tall as she is), and her Odile ranks with the best – indeed (except for almost - but not quite - overturning and missing the floor on her last fouette), she nailed it all. And for her partner David Hallberg – I wrote a few performances ago that his ability to partner Ms. Semionova would be a test of the improvement in partnering that he’s accomplished in the past year. He passed.

A few additional notes about these performances. Jared Matthews’s von Rothbart on Wednesday was the most devilishly delicious of the three I saw (the others were Alexandre Hammoudi and Sascha Radetsky); all of the pas de trois were beautifully performed (by Devon Teuscher, Christine Shevchenko, and Mr. Gorak at Wednesday’s matinee; Melanie Hamrick, Simone Messmer, and Gennadi Saveliev (whose von Rothbart was sorely missed) on Wednesday evening; and Maria Riccetto, Stella Abrera, and Mr. Radetsky on Friday. And in this version, one of the ‘aristocrat’ guests at the prince’s birthday party gets to dance solo with Benno and with the prince. The part, which is not insignificant, is not billed. The role was danced by Ms. Shevchenko on Wednesday evening, and by Cassandra Trenary at Wednesday’s matinee and on Friday. Ms. Shevchenko was deliciously good. Ms. Trenary was that and more -- she was both innocent and seductive, and she stole the scene. This past fall, shortly after she joined the company, I singled out Ms. Trenary as a dancer to watch. Her performances last week are further evidence of that. And it was particularly welcome to see Renata Pavam return, as the Italian Princess on Wednesday evening, following a long injury-induced absence.

The conducting for Wednesday matinee and Friday evening (by Charles Barker and David LaMarche) was well done. On the other hand, the conducting on Wednesday evening’s performance (by Ormsby Wilkins) was abysmal. Portions of the score that are supposed to be adagio were so slow as to be funereal (e.g., in one of the sections of Ms. Messmer’s pas de trois, her dancing look painful as she tried to slow things down to the orchestra’s pace), and where the pace is supposed to be fast enough to lead the dancer to move faster, the pace was like a runaway train (e.g., as perfect as her fouettes were, Ms. Murphy fell behind the music – not because she slowed down (she didn’t), but because the pace was ridiculously fast). The same problem was evident in his conducting of certain performances of “Giselle” that I saw earlier this season. It is a problem that should be addressed.

Finally, in a season filled with casting decisions that appear to make little sense, casting Sarah Lane as a cygnet, particularly at the matinee performance (and again on Friday), seems to this viewer to be particularly, unnecessarily, and inexplicably cruel.

Post subject: Re: American Ballet Theatre: Spring 2012 Season at the Met

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:50 am

Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:02 pmPosts: 1625Location: USA-Switzerland

Thanks, Jerry-balletomaniac, for the two very comprehensive reviews. I'm so glad to hear what you said about Gillian Murphy. Among her many outstanding qualities, her expressive ability as Odette-Odile has captivated me. There are other things that you've mentioned that I would like to comment on, but perhaps another time.

I would like to touch briefly on Alexei Ratmansky. I haven't seen his Firebird, which has drawn a lot of different and emotional response. He does so much that it's hard to keep up with him. I've seen about six of his works.

At the moment I'm totally enchanted by some internet video clips of his Cinderella with Alina Somova and Alexander Sergeyev from the Mariinsky. What I sense in this choreography is a wonderful combining of modern expansiveness and more tradition lyrical flow. In this instance, I don't think that it could be better or more expressively and beautifully illustrated than by Alina Somova's enchanting performance. There is a thread that runs through Alexei Ratmansky's works that I do like very much. Because so much happens in his work it is hard for me to stay focussed on this. I hope to be able to better express this at another time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum